The Panther
Registered User
It's not a narrow-minded view of success. In pro-sports, success equals winning. Period.Even by that (extremely narrow-minded) view of success vs. failure, where do you draw the line?
I didn't think I had to clarify this, but since some of you think I'm an idiot, I will: Obviously, each franchise, in each stage of development, has different standards for relative "success". Yeah, I learned that, like, 40 years ago, but thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious.If you get points for winning, what is winning? Winning the cup? In that case, 31 teams are failures each year. 31 GMs should be criticized each year. Or is simply making the playoffs enough?
Nowhere did I say the Red Wings need to win the Stanley Cup to be considered a success.
I can't speak for Montreal, San Jose, and Chicago fans, but why do you think they're happy? If I was them, I wouldn't be.Why are Montreal, San Jose and Chicago fans happy right now despite, in your eyes, their recent seasons being failures?
Again, I'm not "conceding" something I've always known.Or do you concede that there's wildly differing definitions of success and failure depending on where a team is in their competitive cycle?
But this works both ways. Let me ask you, since you apparently are convinced Yzerman is already a success as a GM: At what point of missed playoff seasons will he become -- in your eyes -- a failure? 8 in a row? 10? 20? Or are you happy to miss the playoffs every year as long as the team improves by 1 point each season?
This is what I'm saying -- it's a results-driven business.